Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-07 BOA MINUTESPRESENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA JANUARY 7,1991 7:00 P.M. ABSENT GUESTS Mrs.Blatterspiel None List in Planning Mrs.Gardner Office Mrs.Kelley Mr.Leffler Mr.Schaffer Mr.Sanchez,Chairman Mr.Nakagawa,Staff Mr.Vehon,BOA City Council Liaison Mr.Coleman,Interim Executive Secretary Mr.Hoffman,Interim Dev.Serv.Director Mrs.Pruitt, Recording Secretary SYNOPSIS Agenda dated January 7,1991 accepted with amendment. Minutes for work session and regular meeting of November 14,1991 approved as presented. BA -4-90 dismissed as per applicant's request. ROLL CALL Six members present as shown above (with one vacancy on the Board). AGENDA Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to accept the agenda dated January 7,1991. BOARD MEMBERS KELLEY-BLATTERSPIEL -M/S "I move we accept the agenda dated January 7,1991 with the exception of Item No.3,which needs to be deleted." Chairman Sanchez noted that Item No.3 had been included to allow the Board to go into Executive Session.He asked for a roll call vote. Motion passed 6-0-0 (with one vacancy on the Board). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 7,1991 PAGE 2 MINUTES Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to approve the work session and regular minutes dated November 14,1990. BOARD MEMBERS BLATTERSPIEL/LEFFLER - M/S "I move that we approve the minutes of the work session and the regular meeting of November 14,1990." Motion passed 6-0-0 (with one vacancy on the Board). BA -4-90 Chairman Sanchez stated Case BA -4-90 was an application of American Public Service Company to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding expansion of the Sierra Entrada Sewage Treatment Plant.He asked for staff briefing. Mr.Coleman stated he had distributed a letter from the applicant requesting dismissal of the case but wished to give some background on the case. He briefed the Board on Case BA -4-90,an application of American Public Service Company (APS), an Arizona Corporation, represented by the law firm of Mariscal,Weeks,McIntyre and Friedlander,P.A.,to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding whether expansion of their nonconforming sewage treatment plant is permitted within a CR-3 zoning district (Sections 3.0104,15.0402). Discussions had taken place and the City would permit the expansion to 99,000 gallons per day as mandated by the State of Arizona.If further expansions were desired,the applicant would:1)seek rezoning of the site,if possible;2)obtain a Conditional Use Permit,if possible;or 3)seek to relocate the sewage treatment plant. If agreeable to the City,the applicant had requested that the case be dismissed.The City Attorney agreed this was acceptable. Mr.Coleman asked the Board to dismiss the case. Chairman Sanchez clarified that the 99,000 gallons per day was State mandated. Mr.Coleman verified that amount was selected by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Attorney General's office,and APS. The City did not participate in the selection. Mr.Sanchez asked if the Board had questions of staff. Board asked: 1)whether that number was higher than the City would require or was that given by the State. 2)regarding an action against APS to clean up the area. 3)regarding a time frame for the work to be done. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 7,1991 PAGE 3 4)what guarantee the City has that they will follow through with their plans. Mr.Coleman replied: 1)the plant is believed to be out of compliance because it is receiving more sewage than it is designed to handle.He was unsure as to how the 99,000 number was selected.The City had been in contact with the Attorney General's Office and the DEQ and had agreed to abide by whatever the State required. 2)APS has appealed that action to Superior Court,and the City has not instituted any additional actions.Any additional citations would probably also end up in Superior Court. 3)said there was a time frame.APS had entered into a Consent Agreement with the State of Arizona regarding the planned expansion.He thought he was told they had 120 days from the actual final approval to complete the projected expansion. The work was supposed to have already been completed but has not yet begun. 4)answered the only guarantee the City has is that they have entered into an agreement with the State,and the State has indicated they will pursue the Consent Agreement until the work is done. The State has indicated they will do whatever is necessary to get the plant taken care of. Chairman Sanchez asked Mr.Nakagawa if he had comments. Mr.Nakagawa replied Mr. Coleman had touched on one consideration of the 99,000 -gallon figure.Crossing that line brings a new set of DEQ requirements (increased setbacks and enclosure),and that is basically the case with DEQ with sewage treatment plants.DEQ has drawn the line and said APS cannot go further. Chairman Sanchez stated in view of the development in the case,he would not open it to the public.Since the applicant had requested dismissal,he asked the Board for a motion to that effect. Board Members Gardner/Schaffer - M/S "I make a motion that Case BA -4-90, American Public Service Company, please be dismissed as requested." Chairman Sanchez asked if there was any further discussion.There was none,so he asked for a roll call vote. Motion passed 6-0-0 (with one vacancy on the Board). Chairman Sanchez expressed appreciation to members of the public who had attended.The application to expand the plant would be withdrawn and dismissed.The only expansion allowed would be what the State had approved,which is agreeable to the City. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 7,1991 PAGE 4 (NOTE:Though the case was not formally opened to the public, several members of the public had questions of staff.Some of the issues raised and the replies are as follows: 1)Would a completion bond be furnished and would the plant be covered? 2)Was the plant ever increased to 60,000 gallons since APS had secured a loan in 1985 to expand the plant and rates had increased at that time? 3)Did the City have any kind of a contract with APS that APS had to provide service? 4)Would the City become involved if the plant were moved? Mr.Coleman explained: 1)the City had nothing to do with the expansion of the plant, only the land use.DEQ issues the permit and they will require any bonds necessary.The applicant was appealing the City's decision that he could not expand his plant in its present location.However,the applicant had certain rights because the plant pre -dates the City and the City's Zoning Ordinance.Though the City does not regulate the type of plant or anything else,it does regulate the land use,which is nonconforming.The City said he could not expand that plant because that belongs in a heavy industrial district. The applicant believed he could expand.The reason for the hearing was to determine whether,under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance,he would be allowed to expand the plant. The City had informed APS and the DEQ in a January 1987 memo that any expansion mandated by Federal or State law to meet minimum public and health requirements would be allowed. Basically,the applicant had agreed to limit his expansion to that which the State ordered, which was the City's position at the outset.The issue was to what extent the plant could be expanded,and the applicant has agreed to stay within the guidelines set down by the DEQ.It was the City's understanding the plant would remain where it is. the Corporation Commission regulates the rates.The DEQ determines how the plant will be operated.The plant was originally to be a 30,000 -gallon plant but was expanded to 60,000 gallons almost before they began construction.It has apparently been a 60,000 -gallon plant for years,even back as far as 1981 or 1982.(It is supposed to be a 60,000 -gallon- per -day plant,as he understands it.)He agreed they were correct that there was some money borrowed,some rate increases were implemented for the purpose of repaying some loans,and the plant was apparently not expanded,or it was started and not completed.He could not fully answer their BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 7,1991 PAGE 5 questions but suggested the Corporation Commission could answer those questions. 3)no,the applicant holds what is called by the State a "certificate of convenience and necessity."That allows him the exclusive service of the area,meaning that no other utility can service it,nor can any other septic systems be put in that certificated area without his approval.The converse of that is he has some obligations to provide sewage treatment for the area,and there has been the problem.There have been problems with the amount of sewage going into the plant,the size of the plant,and whether the plant was capable of processing the sewage.There have been questions raised regarding the ability to go into that certificated area and build because he could not handle any additional flows. These are technical questions that deal with DEQ and the Corporation Commission.The City has nothing to do with that area. yes,because this would be situation regarding whether it was zoned properly and whether it met the requirements and what must be done in order to meet the requirements.Questions regarding money,feasibility,loans,etc.would not be asked. It would be a question of land use only:could the land be used in this fashion,and if so, what are the conditions?The basis for this hearing is it was the City's position that this was a private utility.As such,the applicant was not allowed the exemptions granted to municipalities and sanitary districts.Wherever he goes,he will either need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit,or to contact the neighbors and do essentially the same kinds of things as a Conditional Use Permit requires.) Chairman Sanchez asked them to hold their questions so the Board could finish its business since the case had not been opened to the public.If they wished to remain,perhaps Mr.Coleman could answer their questions after the meeting.(He recognized one other speaker.) Mrs.Smith (no name and address given)said in 1984,the applicant had gone to the Corporate Commission,got $135,000 dollars to increase the plant to 99,000 gallons.He had not done the expansion but had raised their rates to $35.00 a month,which they have paid since 1984.He has not complied with anything,not even erecting an opaque fence around the plant,which he said he would do. Chairman Sanchez said the Board did not have the power to mandate that sort of thing.The only thing the Board could do was the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the ordinance.Mr.Coleman (and possibly Mr.Nakagawa)could answer their questions if they would remain after the meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 7,1991 PAGE 6 He stated the Board of Adjustment had voted unanimously to dismiss the case as per the applicant's request. OLD BUSINESS There was none. NEW BUSINESS There was none. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Chairman Sanchez asked for the Zoning Administrator's report. Mr.Coleman gave the following report: 1)Adriane Brown -White resigned as Development Services Director effective January 4,1991.George Hoffman had been appointed as Interim Development Services Director with duties to be divided. 2)The packet material has a new format.Future presentations will include factual information presented first (slides, aerial photos,other material),then each division will give input regarding the case.The Board can then make its decision. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES... Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion for a work session and regular meeting to be held on February 11,1991. Board Members Blatterspiel/Leffler - MIS "I move that we have a work session on February 11,1991 at 6:45 p.m.and a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m." ADJOURNMENT Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Members Leffler/Gardner - M/S "I move we adjourn." Motiop passed unanimously.The meeting adjourned at 7:40 Charles Coleman,IpOtim Expcptive Secretary 04,0,f Ken Sanchez,Chairman p.m. PRESENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA JANUARY 7,1991 WORK SESSION 6:45 P.M. ABSENT GUESTS Mrs.Blatterspiel None List in Planning Mrs.Gardner Office Mrs.Kelley Mr.Leffler Mr.Schaffer Mr.Sanchez,Chairman Mr.Nakagawa,Staff Mr.Vehon,BOA City Council Liaison Mr.Coleman,Interim Executive Director Mr.Hoffman,Interim Dev.Serv.Director Mrs.Pruitt, Recording Secretary The work session began at 6:45 p.m. BA -4-90,an application of American Public Service Company,an Arizona Corporation,represented by the law firm of Mariscal,Weeks,McIntyre and Friedlander,P.A.,to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding whether expansion of their nonconforming sewage treatment plant is permitted within a CR-3 zoning district (Sections 3.0104,15.0402). Mr.Coleman had informed the Chairman of the Board that the applicant wished to have the case dismissed.He distributed a copy of the telefax request to each member.Some discussion regarding the applicant's expansion plans took place.The City will allow expansion in accordance with the Consent Order between American Public Service Company and the Arizona Department of Environmental Regulations requirements, which is up to a total capacity of 99,000 gallons per day. The work session Charles Coleman, journed at 7:00 p.m.and the regular meeting began. erim,E)gecutive Secretary bn Sanchez,Chairman